There has been an on-going battle between those who declare the necessity of baptism, and those who feel it is unnecessary. Some maintain that it is a good idea, but not essential. Some who believe it is unnecessary insist that baptism is a “work”, that is, an act done with the intent to “earn” one’s salvation or the approval of God. Baptism is an act of submission, in obedience to the requirement stated in the apostle Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in the second chapter of the New Testament book of Acts. It has been pointed out that in every instance of conversion to Christianity in the book of Acts, baptism was the response of the individual who was convicted of their sin, and believed that Jesus Christ was God’s atoning sacrifice on the cross for the sins of mankind.
When one studies all the scriptures in the New Testament on baptism, and what the results are for the individual being baptized, the question should be asked, “How can all these things be a reality for the person who chooses to reject the requirement of baptism?” For instance, Peter’s statement, in Acts 2:38, was that one would, as a result of submission to baptism, be forgiven their past sins and would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If I choose to believe in Christ, yet fail to be baptized, what assurance do I have, from scripture, that my past sins will be forgiven and that I will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Every passage referring to baptism must be similarly considered. Nowhere in scripture, by the way, is one told to pray to ask Jesus into his/her heart, and assured that this action has assured them that they are now Christians.
Another consideration in regard to the importance of baptism comes, surprisingly, from the Old Testament. When God called Abram, whom He later re-named Abraham, in order to establish a covenant with him and his descendents, God required as a sign of the covenant the circumcision of all males [Gen 17:9-14]. In that 14th verse, God said that any man failing to be circumcised would be guilty of breaking the covenant with God, and would be “cut off “.When this expression is used in Exodus 31:14, God Himself says that the person violating the Sabbath by working would be put to death. Did God mean that the individual refusing to submit to circumcision would be subject to death? An incident in the life of Moses should provide the answer for us. In Exodus 3, God appears to Moses in the burning bush, and commissions him to be the deliverer of the people of Israel from the oppression of Egypt and the reigning Pharaoh. God continues, in the 4th chapter, to instruct and encourage Moses, all the way through the 23d verse. In verse 24, however, we’re told that God met Moses and was intent on killing him. Why would God commission someone, give them the ability to perform miraculous signs to emphasize God’s presence and power [Ex 4:2-9] , and then attempt to kill that person? The next verse explains that Moses’ wife, Zipporah, circumcised their son – a covenant responsibility that Moses had failed to perform. Once this was done, we’re told, “So the Lord let him alone [ Ex 4:26a]. Moses’ failure to circumcise his son amounted to a breaking of the covenant with God, which God was intent on punishing.
What does this have to do with baptism? Fast-forward to Colossians 2:9ff. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, speaks of the deity of Christ, and His headship over all rule and authority. Paul says we have been made complete in Him [Christ], and then says,
Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Paul seems to define the “circumcision made without hands” and the “circumcision of Christ” by speaking of one “having been buried with Him in baptism.” The connection he makes cannot be denied, and should cause us to pause and think. Circumcision as a sign of the Old Covenant was so significant that failure to comply with its demand meant a breaking of the covenant and death. If Paul could draw a parallel between the two – circumcision required by the Old covenant and baptism with its various results for the believer as taught in the New Testament, are we treading on dangerous ground by minimizing baptism, or even declaring it entirely unnecessary?
Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.